Shadowy federal bureau probably has your credit card information

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau remains "the most out-of-control, unaccountable, and nontransparent agency in the federal government...

And we can say that without reservation because this is one of the only agencies that literally operates outside of congressional oversight," added Wise, whose Virgina-based organization "works to protect consumers' right to access free-market goods and services."

The CFPB, created under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, is funded largely by fees banks pay to the Federal Reserve.

While its director, Richard Cordray, has bragged that his bureau has levied more than $141 million in fines used for CFPB education programs or reparation to consumers, the agency has mined a broad base of consumer information in its pursuit of "protection."

Critics contend the CFPB's data-collection program makes the National Security Agency's spying operations look like a creepy guy with a telephoto lens by comparison.

"The CFPB had a goal of collecting 95 percent of all credit card account information by the end of 2015, and by all accounts they met that.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is suing the bureau on the grounds that CFPB is unconstitutional.

In another case, where the CFPB is suing the bankruptcy services firm Morgan Drexen, the bureau has claimed unsuccessfully that it is exempt from depositions.

This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the CFPB continues to grow unchecked,

Here is a list of constitutional problems with the CFPB imo.

The Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide these clauses from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in Congress, not in the executive or legislative branches, or in non-elected bureaucrats like those running the CFPB or EPA, etc.. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on fedreal legislative powers whether it wants it or not imo.
But by delegating legislative / regulatory powers to constitutionally undefined agencies like the CFPB, Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above.
Also, Thomas Jefferson had indicated, in an official report to President George Washington, that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had decided not to delegate to the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate banks.
”A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” - Jeffersons Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
The Supreme Court had also clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limted powers, the power to regulate INTRAstate banking not one of those powers.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So why are banks paying fees to the CFPB? (Note that the Constitutions Clause 1 of Section 7 of Article I, the ”power of the purse” clause, is the feds only source of revenue imo.)
The Supreme Court had also clarified that the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So why are the feds regulating banks since Jefferson had indicated that they have no constitutional authority to do so?
Noting that banks conduct business with customers on the basis of contracts, not commerce (corrections welcome), the Supreme Court had also clarified that contracts are out of the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating a contract are domiciled in different states.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract[emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869.

The corrupt feds unconstitutionally sticking their big noses into INTRAstate banking is arguably just another example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified.

Remember in November !

So if patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, they will also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the president.

In fact, note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices who help to empower bad-apple presidents to do unconstitutional things.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.